Planning department recommends denial of Cycle Zoning petition for Loch Raven Boulevard/Joppa Road sliver; petitioner says omission was clerical

The Baltimore County Department of Planning recommended that the Planning Board advise the Board of Appeals to deny a Cycle Zoning reclassification petition affecting parcels at the intersection of Loch Raven Boulevard and Joppa Road, citing lack of evidence of a substantial change in neighborhood character or a technical mapping error. The petition seeks reclassification from BL to BMCCC (the petitioner had earlier sought BMAS) for multiple parcels the petitioner says were intended to be included in the Comprehensive Zoning Map Process (CZMP) last year.

Director Lafferty summarized the department’s review and told the board the petitioner provided limited supporting evidence that the zoning line omission was caused by a mapping error. Lafferty said staff found no evidence of new development or other changes near the properties that would satisfy the Cycle Zoning standard and noted that the Board of Appeals is restricted from granting reclassifications on the basis of neighborhood change for one year after a council-adopted map amendment affecting the subject property.

Jason Vitori, counsel for the petitioner, said the omission was not contested by the petitioner and described the excluded parcel as a small sliver — “approximately 10,000 square feet or maybe a quarter acre” — that was omitted because the petitioner used address-based parcel lookups rather than an ALTA survey when filing. Vitori said the petitioner submitted a correction-of-map request in November 2024, pursued the appeal process after the director denied that correction, and that an email from the county council member for the district states “it was my intent to rezone the entire property.”

Vitori argued the omitted sliver is effectively part of the same ownership and context as the parcels that were rezoned in the CZMP and that the property owner and a contract purchaser have commercial development interest in assembling the whole site. He told the board that if the petitioner cannot secure relief under cycle zoning now, the owner would likely return during the next CZMP in about three-and-a-half years.

Lafferty told board members that county records show the CZMP maps were prepared and presented to the petitioner during the prior process and that, by the department’s account, the omission originated with the petitioner’s submission. He said granting relief now could be viewed as rewarding the petitioner for an error in their original submission.

Board members asked whether council staff or the council member had been contacted; Lafferty said he spoke with the council member, who told him he believed the parcels owned by the same owner had been included when he reviewed and approved the CZMP outcome. The petitioner has an outstanding appeal related to the Director’s denial of a zoning map correction; that appeal is proceeding at the Board of Appeals.

The Planning Board held the Cycle Zoning public hearing on June 17 and closed testimony; the board will reconvene to deliberate and vote on a report to the Board of Appeals at its July 17, 2025 meeting. The board received no speakers from the sign-in sheet during the hearing.

Quotations used in this article are attributed to participants as recorded in the Planning Board hearing transcript.